On Valencia Street I met a manWhose hair announced the age; an ageOf wheelchair bums and whitey dreads,Winy espressos and knobbed dildoes,Watched over by caring helicopters;Ecco San Francisco, this firstDecade of a crackborn millennium;To any head that's screwed on tight,Normal; to a loose-necked remnantIll-fastened to the present, anAmazing sight - but when so epicAs this dude's head? Brown humongousBroccoli dreads with daikon dreams,Surely shoulder-length or more, yetPinned forward over - a baseball cap -Picture it, dear reader, as you dare;Observe that to the careless observerThis sprout, this growth much-lovedAnd deeply foul, has clearly thrustIts way, a daisy through concrete, throughThe crown of the equally foul cap... atThis moment the fart of a big truckRang in my mindless ear, and I recalledThe words of Mrs. Kate Crane Gartz -Yes, of the famous plumbing Cranes -In a letter to the Los Angeles RecordIn 1923; "California," she wrote,"Is called the Prussia of America,The most reactionary of the states;I would change that reputationTo the MOST PROGRESSIVE, in factThe leader; to show the world weHave something besides our scenery,That we have a heart and soul." Oh!Mrs. Gartz! I have a California,Heart and soul both slightly used,For you; yours I'll take in trade.Does scenery mean too much to me?

Mordecai Melvindichter has at last emerged from underneath his writhing mound of Colombian prostitutes. No doubt he's a bit more moist and humid than usual, but any man in Melvindichter's enviable position would be that way too.

Great imagery. Echoes of Breitbart's statement that because the weather is still good, people in California think they are still living in the same state as before, but in fact the state has changed, through Progressive malfeasance, so as to be absolutely unrecognizable to anyone who lived in it 50 years ago: this is why so many are packing up and leaving for the dusty, dry deserts of Nevada and Arizona, where the weather sucks but Prussianism is slightly less prevalent. I think this poetry form of Mencius' tells it better.

Of course, Mrs. Gartz's "heart and soul" are of dubious value. I'm reminded of the single element of the Crossman Diaries that I found most disturbing, an offhand remark about how Barbara Castle was fervent and emotional about some cause to the point of being difficult to reason with.

Contrast that with Tassano's description of the rare and endangered upper class sensibility:

"Have you ever met any upper-class people? I do not mean buffoons, like the Marquess of Bath. They used to be found in the upper echelons of the top banks and oil companies. Contrary to the popular image of them, as churned out by all cultural channels nowadays, they are not as a rule sadistic and ruthless, at least no more than the average person, nor are they “nice but dim”. What they do tend to exhibit is a particular kind of psychology which is difficult to define but which, around here, we call “impersonal”. This term can be misunderstood, since it is certainly not meant to imply saintliness or even lack of self-interest. An ability to see the bigger picture, enlightened self-interest, cynicism, not insisting too much on superficial rationality of a kind that can easily be proved to others, willingness to back hunches — these are some of the possible features, but it is not a foolproof description. The easiest way to understand it is to see it in action."

Apart from expressing cynicism towards Mrs. Gartz, Moldbug's concluding line could also double as a sincere question to his audience: are the consequences of Universalism substantially evil, or merely aesthetically displeasing?

Disorder, dysgenics and decivilisation are all despicably ugly things - but are these problems important enough to merit a hazardous "reboot" of the US government, or but unfortunate changes in the scenery to be suffered with a resigned grimace?

I think this commenter illustrates a salient point regarding the loss of an "upper class" in modern society. Moldbug is at heart a Burkean. Politics - and power - is too important a job to be left to amateurs. The problem with the Brahmin-dominated civil service bureaucracy is not that they are careerists, but that they do not understand the political forces which actually direct the ship of state. They are small-picture people. Each thinks her own section of the deck is the only one that matters. The problem with modern politicians is that they are all amateurs - even the 30-year Senators. They confuse campaigning with rule. Modern democrat-republican voters further this idiocy in assuming that being able to run a campaign proves a candidates political mettle. The idea is absurd. Just because you can swim out to the boat doesn't mean you know how to steer her. Mencius' royalism/cameralism is simply a means of putting an professional in power. No King or WashCorp CEO ever has absolute power: he merely has absolute legitimacy so long as he is able to carefully steer the ship of state. Like any complicated task, to do so effectively takes skill, and skill takes practice, and probably some raw talent. Even at the level of a statesman, a true politician a statesman a la Metternich - bred and educated for the job, would eat these modern fops for breakfast. Sadly, the modern world considers the political process too sacred to ever let a professional statesman anywhere near politics. Yet all societies have aristocracies: some merely have aristocracies which are far less useful than others. China is attempting to recreate a modern aristocratic bureaucracy: time will tell if the attempt can succeed while retaining the vestiges of China's progressive, Leninist political model. (I am not lauding the Chinese model: effective rule is simply effective, this does not make it ethically or morally sound.) I would say the only Western entity with anything approaching professional statesmen is the Vatican - which, absent Vatican II which is generally ignored wherever possible, has been of course busily avoiding modernization for the past 600 years or so.

Someone asked me to elaborate on Barbara Castle. Here is the excerpt I vaguely recalled:

Page 453:

"As a result of the Rhodesian executions [the execution of three African resistance leaders, despite the Queen having officially commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on the advice of the British Government] we were bound to have a speech from Barbara Castle in Cabinet demanding that we should think again about military sanctions. But nobody else was prepared to listen. George Brown, Denis Healey, George Thomson, Tony Crosland and Roy Jenkins all want to damp this down because they see the danger of committing ourselves any further. If only Harold Wilson shared Barbara's mood of excitement. His new idea was an all-party resolution to be drafted by the Lord Chancellor. We discussed this and agreed to it."

Crossman appears to endorse Castle's idea, but whatever its merits what I find disturbing is her evidently emotional, "excited" reason for taking this stance. She was advocating a policy that could have led to serious escalation of an international dispute, on the basis of overwhelming feelings rather than rational, detached judgement.

I also located another couple of relevant entries:

From Page 563 onwards: "We [Crossman and Barbara] had a long and arduous struggle [regarding the merits of her White Paper on strikes] and she thought I was just sabotaging and filibustering. To some extent it's fair to say I was. (Judith told me that when she got into the room she overheard Barbara saying to the others, 'My God, a colleague rewriting a White Paper for another colleague. By jove, when he has another White Paper, what won't I do to him.' [...])

Barbara got pretty hysterical in the course of the afternoon and the Committee got more and more angry with me, saying I was unreasonable, until slowly it at last began to dawn on them that they had been misled. [...]

I found a big banner headline in the Guardian, where Ian Aitken had a very accurate story that Barbara and I are at loggerheads and that I am pleading for green edges to her White Paper.

I wondered uneasily whether this would have upset Barbara and certainly she was very cross this morning when we settled down at 10.15 to continue the Committee work on her White Paper. In Cabinet I had said, half-jokingly, that if she didn't have a Ministerial Committee before the White Paper she should jolly well have one after it and this was what she was getting. It was our third meeting and she was still ferociously angry at the idea that any Cabinet colleague should submit her to this indignity."

Page 607: "Just as I got upstairs Judith came in, looking very grey and seeming terribly upset about Bob Mellish [the new Chief Whip, replacing John Silkin]. Next was Barbara, furiously angry at what Harold had done, taking it as a personal insult. I took her out to dinner and she fumed. After all, he had talked to us for an hour this morning and given us the impression that he was just thinking about having a new Chief Whip and then, under her nose, he swept John Silkin away and put in Bob Mellish, a bête noire of Barbara's, without consulting her and in the middle of her own negotiations with John about the conduct of her Industrial Relations Bill. She said it was intolerable, she would never forgive Harold, she was going to destroy him and finally I advised her to write him a really stinking letter."

This person was a very senior politician in the British Government - and was clearly a hysterical, irresponsible woman whom on this evidence one wouldn't trust to run a school fête, let alone a nuclear-armed first world country. Clearly, we ought to be thankful for the gradual relegation of elected politicians to merely "dignified" status within the constitution.

Although Ms. Castle seems particularly egregious, the rest of the Cabinet Ministers portrayed in the Crossman Diaries aren't much better. The book paints a very sordid picture of democratic politics.

Since the Supreme Leader has returned in glory, I'd like to bring something to the attention of his eminence.

I'd like to make him aware of the fact that the "racialist" community doesn't can't explain why race is important because they are wedded to a racialist ideology, "Ethnic Genetic Intersts" that is compatible with neither Darwinism nor Galtinism.

Per EGI, race is important because races are similar.

A "Genetic Similarity" justification for racial importance is, of course, contrary to Darwinian evolution because retaining similarity defeats the purpose of Darwinism. The purpose of Darwinism is beneficially adaptating traits and abilities to better suit one's environment, not cloning schlubs that look exactly like you.

If "Genetic Similarity" were the purpose of Darwinian evolution, then sexual evolution would not have come into existence because sexual evolution allows for new trait/ability combinations to come into existence than asexual reproduction does.

Race is, therefore, important because the races have developed *mental profiles that make them more suitable for building certain types of societies than others, and not because of "Genetic Similarity.

Perhaps the reason white racialism is going nowhere in the US is because the vaunted racialists can't explain why race is important without contradicting the fundamental purpose of Darwinism as Darwin (and Galton) understood it.

* And mental characteristics are what the race debate revolves around because nobody disputes races have different physical adaptations such as height, skin color, body shape, musculature, susceptibility or immunity to particular diseases, etc, etc.

The whole reason sexual reproduction came into existence was to create more beneficent trait combinations in an organism's offspring, and not to produce "genetic similarity".

If "similarity" were the objective of natural selection, then why didn't reproduction remain asexual? Because what offspring could be more "genetically similar" to another biological organism than an asexually generated clone?

And he's repeating the lame critique of EGI that was made at GNXP years ago, and that was demolished at Majority Rights.

Since when is Majority Rights a better repository for evolutionary theory than Charles Darwin?

Darwin said natural selection was important because different species over time developed differing adaptations to different environments.

Retaining "Genetic Similarity" is therefore anti-Darwininian because adaptations to the environment is supposed to cause changes in a species.

This is some racialist movement we've got here where the mighty racial tribalists/paleoconservatives/altrighters/whatever can't articulate why race is important without contradicting evolutionary theory as Charles Darwin himself understood it.

UJ, you say you understand that evolution does not have a purpose, but in the very next comment you mention natural selection's "objective." I understand that it's very hard to get away from intentional language when talking about evolution, but while it's a perfectly reasonable shorthand when talking about a gene, or an organism, or an adaptation, it's ridiculous to talk about the purpose of evolution as a whole. By the way, I am definitely not a creationist.

Anyway, I don't know much about EGI, but I am familiar with kin selection, which does involve genetic similarity. The likely influence of haplodiploidy on the development of eusociality in the hymenoptera is a classic example of this powerful idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplodiploid_sex-determination_system

Haplodiploidy makes female bees, ants, and wasps share 75% of their genes on average with their female siblings, rather than 50%. It can't be a coincidence most of our examples of insect eusociality, and all the examples with an entirely female sterile caste, come from haplodiploid organisms.

What about sexual reproduction, you say? Well, if you can produce twice as many descendants by mixing your genes 50-50 with something else's, then it's worth it (there's that useful shorthand I mentioned). Since you probably already share a lot of genes with anything you can reproduce with, it should be even easier to get to a point where sexual reproduction is a useful strategy. Of course, taking a small step back from sex seems to have worked out very nicely for the hymenoptera, and there are plenty of successful asexual organisms, so YMMV.

Like I said, I know next to nothing about EGI, but your critique of it is obviously bunk. For a better one, check out gnxp:http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003501.htmlpart 2:http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003504.html

UJ, you say you understand that evolution does not have a purpose, but in the very next comment you mention natural selection's "objective." I understand that it's very hard to get away from intentional language when talking about evolution, but while it's a perfectly reasonable shorthand when talking about a gene, or an organism, or an adaptation, it's ridiculous to talk about the purpose of evolution as a whole. By the way, I am definitely not a creationist.

Anyway, I don't know much about EGI, but I am familiar with kin selection, which does involve genetic similarity. The likely influence of haplodiploidy on the development of eusociality in the hymenoptera is a classic example of this powerful idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplodiploid_sex-determination_system

Haplodiploidy makes female bees, ants, and wasps share 75% of their genes on average with their female siblings, rather than 50%. It can't be a coincidence most of our examples of insect eusociality, and all the examples with an entirely female sterile caste, come from haplodiploid organisms.

What about sexual reproduction, you say? Well, if you can produce twice as many descendants by mixing your genes 50-50 with something else's, then it's worth it (there's that useful shorthand I mentioned). Since you probably already share a lot of genes with anything you can reproduce with, it should be even easier to get to a point where sexual reproduction is a useful strategy. Of course, taking a small step back from sex seems to have worked out very nicely for the hymenoptera, and there are plenty of successful asexual organisms, so YMMV.

Like I said, I know next to nothing about EGI, but your critique of it is obviously bunk. For a better one, check out gnxp:http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003501.htmlpart 2:http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003504.html

UJ, you say you understand that evolution does not have a purpose, but in the very next comment you mention natural selection's "objective." I understand that it's very hard to get away from intentional language when talking about evolution, but while it's a perfectly reasonable shorthand when talking about a gene, or an organism, or an adaptation,

Organisms and adaptations don't have a purpose in a materialistic universe either.

it's ridiculous to talk about the purpose of evolution as a whole.

Only if you're obtuse and didn't understand I was using "shorthand" when I talked about evolution's "purpose"...

Anyway, I don't know much about EGI, but I am familiar with kin selection, which does involve genetic similarity.

Group selection is not the same as kin selection because group selection imposes too high a fitness penalty on an organism's offspring to mathematically work in an actual environment.

Basically, kin selection works mathematically because kin selection is mathematically more optimal because it kin selection does not require dividing resources as severely as group selection does.

For example, under a kin selection strategy of only helping your immediate family, a father who evenly divides his $100 million fortune with his four children would be enhancing his own children's reproductive fitness more than he would under a "group selection" strategy where he divides his fortune evenly divides his fortune among 10,000 ethnically similar neighborhood children.

What about sexual reproduction, you say? Well, if you can produce twice as many descendants by mixing your genes 50-50 with something else's, then it's worth it

The reason sexual reproduction came into existence is actually a mystery to evolutionary scientists. But what they do agree upon is that sexual reproduction would not exist under an environment that favored genetic similarity because an asexually generated clone is always more similar than offspring which carries only 50% (or 75%) of one's genes.

Salter’s concept of 'genetic interests' is an attempt to base individual interests on the metaphorical 'interest' of genes. I am unable to attach any intelligible meaning to most of what he says about it. No doubt he is right to say that 'the process of genetic evolution is certainly the ultimate cause of our existence', but to leap from this (which is a statement of fact) to the claim that 'genetic continuity is the ultimate interest of all life' seems to me mere gibberish. 'Life' doesn’t have an 'interest', any more than water has an 'interest' in flowing downhill. And even if 'life' or 'genes' did have an 'interest', so what? Why should we as individuals put the interest of our genes before our personal wants and needs, or even give it any weight at all? Salter does recognise the 'so what?' objection, but his answer to it is just the same old flapdoodle about genes as 'fundamental' to our existence. Ultimately, Salter's attitude towards the genes is more mystical than scientific.

2) Genetic similarity defeats the purpose of both eugenics and "Natural/Old Fashioned" Darwinian eugenics AKA traditional Darwinian sexual reproduction because the purpose of Darwinian evolution is to enhance characteristics in a population to ensure survival:

Secondly, Salter’s doctrine is profoundly anti-eugenic. For Salter, it is in the interest of an individual to preserve and promote the gene frequencies of his own ethnic group, whether the existing gene frequency is good, bad or indifferent, as judged by qualitative criteria. So, for example, it is in the interest of American blacks to promote their own gene frequencies against those of American whites, even if in some respects it would be better for blacks themselves to change those gene frequencies. The doctrine of genetic interests is inherently backward-looking and conservative. In contrast, the eugenic position is that we are able to make value judgements about what characteristics are desirable (such as health, intelligence, and beauty) and undesirable (such as stupidity, mental illness, and physical disabilities) and then to take reproductive decisions based on those judgements.

He also apparently doesn't understand that Darwin wasn't right about everything and that he wasn't some sort of infallible rabbi.

So now, in an effort to salvage Salterism's incoherent and logically anti-evolutionary and anti-eugenic reason for racialism, the Salterians have descended to comparing Holy Charles Darwin to a filthy Jewish rabbi

On the contrary. It is the Salterians (including Salter himself) who not only don't understand Darwinism, but don't understand EGI either.

When the racialists comment about some race related story in the news, they are actually making their racialist points in DARWINIAN terms, not EGI terms.

For instance, when there is a post on black violence, the EGIers make comments about races importance on Darwinian terms, ie, they comment about mental TRAITS that differ between races, such as black propensity to violence, low black future time orientation, and low intelligence.

The CORRECT reason race is important (according to Saint Darwin, not Frank Salter) is because the races have different mean psychological* abilities and characteristics.

Because Western culture is based on white cognitive characteristics, Western culture is race based because the culture and character of every culture is a reflection of the inherent characteristics and adaptations of different races.

Since Western culture depends on white abilities, Western culture is directly linked to the success of the white race, not the non-white races.

Different races require their abilities be governed under differing cultural systems in order to thrive because their traits were selected to thrive under different cultural environments.

Because culture is directly tied to race (from the perspective of Saint Darwin) all immigration to all white nations should be exclusively be reserved to whites only applicants because white cognitive traits are needed to make a white nation successful because those cognitive traits are more adapted for a white social environment.

I was using the word "purpose" as a way to express the results of chance, while acknowledging chance doesn't have an intent or objective as the word purpose suggests chance possesses.

Okay. What I wrote above is asinine but it put a smile across my face. Oh well. That said, the word "purpose" suggests nothing about evolution or anything about what it may or may not possess and as such everything after the word 'objective' is total nonsense.

Okay. What I wrote above is asinine but it put a smile across my face.

It's not as asinine as Salter's claim that genes, life, and genetic continuity have "interests" :

No doubt he is right to say that 'the process of genetic evolution is certainly the ultimate cause of our existence', but to leap from this (which is a statement of fact) to the claim that 'genetic continuity is the ultimate interest of all life' seems to me mere gibberish. 'Life' doesn’t have an 'interest', any more than water has an 'interest' in flowing downhill.

In addition to being unable to argue coherently in favor of white supremacy, Hitler's few (but noisy) remaining loyalists have an aesthetic vision of a successor ideology to Nazism that is a pale shadow of the actual political Nazism of history.

The aesthetic impression the paleoconservatives and WNs use when describing a post-Nazism would never have made it out of the drawing room of the Reich Chancellery. Some examples:

Take the racialist embrace of the word "Tribalism" to describe their ideal nation state and compare that embrace to what actual Nazi political apparatchiks made of the term.

According to both Hitlerian and non-Hitlerian archeologists in the pre-WWII era, tribalism is an inferior form of civilization that the European peoples had evolved beyond.

Pro-Hitler archeologists certainly would not have been caught dead using the "Tribalism" to describe Hitler's vision of an Aryan Reich. If anyone were foolish enough to go to Goebbels and suggest Reich 3.0 be advertised as a "Tribal" state, Goebbels would have promptly made a phone call to the Abwehr's front desk to "remove" such an incompetent from Goebbels residence.

"Salter’s views are not “anti-eugenic”, and the Huntington’s example is vulgar and absurd. Salter openly and clearly states (Section 4d, page 89) that it would be adaptive, in a net sense for the entire distinctive genome, for maladaptive alleles to be sacrificed. A quote:-

'Those dysfunctional alleles no longer serve the interests of the majority of the genes compromising the genome and thus the individual’s genetic interests would be preserved or increased by substitution of maladaptive alleles.'

After that, for anyone to assert that Salter’s position in any way implies that genes for fatal diseases need to be preserved is the height of mendacity."

"In summary, I see points 3 and 5 as gross distortions of Salter’s openly stated views. Essentially David lifts from Salter’s book the possible objections, but neglects to give Salter’s answers. These distortions are a plain warning sign to third parties NOT to depend on GNXP for honest analyses of Salterism."

"David’s assertion about the relative non-importance of human genetic variation is an opinion, which mirrors the “we are all the same” arguments of race-deniers. Salter deals with this in section 4e of his book (pages 89-93). Given that genetic information is arraigned in a hierarchical fashion, with small changes in control genes and promoter/enhancer regions having significant downstream effects on total gene expression and resultant phenotypes (on which selection operates), the “differences are too small” argument falls flat. Ironically, many of the non-political posts in GNXP’s own archives underline the importance of human genetic variation and thus contradict David’s assertions of the universalist genetic identity of humanity. The idea that we are all essentially clones of each other is undermined by new data that shows variation between individuals (the Nature Genetics paper described below concentrates on groups, btw). The “we are 99.9% the same” commentaries may soon become undermined by reality. Does David deny that individuals belonging to the same population group have more common/recent ancestors than persons belonging to different groups and thus share more distinctive gene frequencies?

Of interest as well as Salter’s point (page 91) that the politically-correct minimization of human genetic variation is an inversion of scientific reasoning, in that it attempts to obscure rather than “explain and predict facts” such as gene-caused phenotypic differences between population groups. If human biodiversity results from that genetic variation which David says is so small, then this stresses rather than diminishes the importance of these small differences. In addition, genetic interests are relative and even siblings - whose genetic differences are small compared to those that characterize population groups - have differences in interests (“sibling rivalry”). Furthermore, genetic interests are the product of the extent of relative genetic variation multiplied by the numbers of people involved. The genetic interest inherent in ethnies is very large because of population size."

"Salter clearly states in his book (page 95) that it is only distinctive genes [frequencies] that are important (not total genetic similarity). Harpending also makes this point in his onion analogy in the Appendix (page 327). Genetic variation that is randomly distributed among populations does not constitute ethnic genetic interest because the gene (and gene sequence) frequencies remain the same regardless of the outcome of ethnic competition. Thus, it is not overall genetic similarity that is the point per se, but distinctive genetic information, in a relative sense."

"Here and there one finds some absurd, strawman fallacies of genetic similarity and some absurd, strawman representations of Salter’s work being promoted. So with this post I am seeking to correct any misunderstandings arising from these.

The genetic interests that a given group has as a group is that genetic information that distinguishes it from other groups. Genetic information that is found randomly distributed among all humans may be a genetic interest at the human/non-human level (dependent upon whether it is species-distinctive) - but it is not relevant genetic interest for intra-human, inter-population comparisons.

The same principle applies for ANY evaluation of genetic interest. Since genetic interest is a relative concept, genetic interest at each and any level of comparison is based only on that genetic information that is distinctive between the groups being compared - eg, family vs ethny, ethny vs humanity, humanity vs mammals, etc. Put another way, genetic information found in all groups cannot be a part of a genetic interest of one groups vs another!!!

If this still isn’t crystal clear see pages 47 and 95 of Salter’s book where, of course, the job is done so much better than I can do it.

It is also worth noting my previous post on mouse genetics - compared to humans, mice are ~99% similar genetically, with a ~80% one-to-one correspondence of genes, and a ~40% correspondence of genetic structure. And yet, a mouse litter is not a greater genetic interest to a human than is another human. The similarity of mice to humans is not distinctive at the mammalian level."

Memo to the people talking about "EGI": nobody gives a damn. Please stop polluting this site with your irrelevant, repetitive boilerplate. You are worse than the Chinese spam. Go and crawl back into your holes.

Anonymous, Salterism fails because it's internally contradictory and because he can't explain why distinctive genes are important to race relations, whereas Darwin did.

Frank Salter is pushing two arguments founded on genetic similarity:

1) Members of the same ethnic group have an interest and civilization obligation to take resources from their own immediate family members (whom they are most related to) and share them with members of their same ethnic group (whom they are somewhat less related to).

2) The interests of an ethnic group and the obligation to extend resources from one's family to a more distantly related family either completely or almost completely end beyond their own ethnic group because they share relatively more distinctive gene frequencies with their own ethnic group than they do with other ethnic groups.

The fundamental problem with Salter is that neither of these arguments can be justified on grounds of genetic similarity.

Basically, if we consider things only through the lens of genetic similarity, if your family is more related to you than non-family members of your own ethnic group, then why shouldn't one's family level genetic interests and obligations trump your ethnic level genetic interests and obligations and lead one to not give any resources at all to anyone outside your immediate family?

For instance, as far as genetic similarity is concerned, an English father with four children who wants to divide a $100 million fortune would have his genetic interests better served by splitting his fortune among his four children rather than splitting it with other English families because his immediate family members would benefit more by having those financial resources entirely devoted to them and not divided with other Englishmen.

Likewise, if there is an ethnic level genetic interest and obligation for this English father to extend resources beyond the family level because he shares distinct genes with other Englishmen (but relatively less than he does with his own family), then why should genetic interests stop ONLY at the ethnic level?

From the perspective of genetic similarity, isn't there a species level genetic obligation and species level interests for the Enshlishman to share resources with ALL humans on earth because the entire human species shares common genetic frequencies.

Natives of Senegal and Vietnam also share distinctive species level genetic frequencies with the Englishman so why isn't the Englishman obligated to share resources with Senegalese and Vietnamese?

Why do genetic similarity obligations go beyond the family level but end entirely or almost entirely at the ethnic level? Why shouldn't genetic obligations and interests go beyond family level interests and obligations and straight to species level interests?

Under Salterism there is no fundamental reason why there shouldn't also be species level interests.

Apparently our Overlord was busy writing the new Egyptian "Enabling laws" on behalf of Field Marshal Tantawi and the Egytpian military junta.

The military's declaration looks like chemically pure Mencian dictatorship, but without the sci-fi weapons and high tech detention facitilies and mind probes. Basically, the military gets to hand select the new group of Egyptians assigned to writing a new constitution, the Egyptian parliament has been dissolved, the newly elected president has no control over the military's budget or high command, and he can do nothing on foreign policy without the consent of the generals.

A bravura document you typed there, Mencius.

Maybe he's taken to using a different handle to keep us loyal orcs from following him around.

Be careful not to observe MM too closely, he may assume forms and shift shapes...

I think there may well be species-level interests. Don't you agree that if the world population of some species approaches ~500, or the p(extinction) approaches 0.33, it would be fitness-enhancing for its individuals to largely suspend for the time being any intra-specific competition? --And even engage in 'gratuitous' altruism towards conspecifics, provided the cost is modest. Extinction being just as bad as death, or worse, these acts are actually selfish.

If organisms in fact fail to evolve such a behavior program, I would guess it's probably because they are not threatened with extinction very often, or very regularly. The adaptation's utility is, then, simply not great enough to prevent the decay of the DNA that would encode it.

Of course many species may also have trouble detecting in the first place whether they have indeed sunk to a population near 500 -- however, plenty of species do have the chance to assess that directly.

Don't you agree that if the world population of some species approaches ~500, or the p(extinction) approaches 0.33, it would be fitness-enhancing for its individuals to largely suspend for the time being any intra-specific competition?

Completely disagree. It's everyone for themselves during an extinction event due to resource scarcity and high death tolls. Extending crucial resources to a sub-species during an extinction threat could lead to that sub-species survival to the detriment of your own sub-species.

This is why the math is so heavily stacked against group interests beyond the kin level: if you extend resources and support beyond yourself and your offspring and to your own ethnic group, you risk lowering your own offspring's survival chances while raising the survival of genetically similar but non-immediate kin neighbors at your own offspring's expense.

But let's say the math does work in favor of group selection. Under a less extreme scenario than an extinction level event, when would racialists agree to extend resources and social obligations to non-whites because of species level genetic interests?

Also there is a third problem with EGI:

3) EGI advocates also support extending resources to other white ethnic groups, but there is no reason why genetic similarity should be the basis for extending these resources because different white ethnic groups have somewhat distinctive genes compared to closer white ethnic groups.

For example, there are small distinctive genetic differences between Swedes and Latvians (for one things, Latvians have a bit more Slavic DNA than Swedes do because of Latvia's greater proximity to Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine), but EGI supporters would have no problem with Swedes importing Latvian immigrants even though Swedes are genetically not as similar to Latvians as they are to other Swedes.

What is it about genetic similarity theory that would justify Swedes to extending resources and social obligations to Latvian immigrants but not Congoleses immigrants?

There is none, under EGI. Under EGI, Latvians would be less worse than Congolese immigrants in terms of distance, but there would still be no reason Swedes should view Latvians as legitimate Swedes from EGI because there are small differences in allele frequency between the two groups.

The answer to this question comes from Darwin, not Salter's mangled logic.

Under old fashioned Darwinian theory, the reason Swedes should not have a problem assimilating Latvian immigrants is because Latvians share the psychological characteristics needed to thrive and carry forward Swedish cultural and social organization while Congolese immigrants to do not share those cognitive capabilities because they are not ADAPTED for a Swedish cultural environment as Latvians are.

The reason race is important is because Darwinianly selected adaptations, not the ridiculous "Ethnic Genetic Interests".

> It's everyone for themselves during an extinction event due to resource scarcity and high death tolls.

Well, it depends on which situations we ponder. At least some extinction-skirting situations feature essentially constant food and shelter per capita -- consider a highly isolated lake that at times becomes many times smaller, and almost threatens to dry up altogether. Or a volcanic island most of whose land area is periodically devastated. Or a continent where a slightly superior competitor species is introduced -- it outcompetes the index species for resources, but only by 0.5%, such that extinction is approached in a very slow process.

In these situations, with only 70 individuals left in the species, random conspecifics are your tools for not having your (and your alleles') fitness legacy irreversibly set at naught -- random conspecifics are always your tools in this way, only that fact won't influence your behavior at normal times, when the near-term risk of extinction is one millionth. --Because one millionth -- or 0.45, as the case may be -- is going to be a coefficient of your level of interest in the matter. If you aren't going extinct right now, I'd suggest worrying about it later.

However, the day the species does go extinct, it no longer matters that you aided your kin/descendants around time t, and that your alleles aided/generated other copies of themselves. All is lost, you & yours can't transfer into some other species, nor can your alleles. I don't know, maybe it's somewhat nice in itself that you once had fitness, but the fact is you haven't got it anymore. Think of this, youngblood, I once had a certain amount of it myself, not excluding a social life of sorts -- girls, even -- now chiefly phantoms and mementos. --Hence (obviously) my embittered delight in hobbies like persecuting world Jewry.

As long as extinction is looming very close, you must compromise between fighting extinction and fighting for your own fitness in the usual sense. You will play nicer than usual with random conspecifics -- for instance territories will become somewhat more equal in desirability. Territories cost energy and well-being, and such intraspecific competition is sub-worthless friction from the species perspective (except in the very long run inasmuch as it's eugenic). You will focus relatively more on striving against other species, and against abiotic factors.

> if you extend resources and support beyond yourself and your offspring and to your own ethnic group, you risk lowering your own offspring's survival chances while raising the survival of genetically similar but non-immediate kin neighbors at your own offspring's expense.

Certainly true, but you have few offspring and millions of coethnics. That has to be a major consideration.

> There is none, under EGI. Under EGI, Latvians would be less worse than Congolese immigrants in terms of distance, but there would still be no reason Swedes should view Latvians as legitimate Swedes from EGI because there are small differences in allele frequency between the two groups.

I entirely agree. There are probably (nonrandom) allele freq differences from west Malmo to east Malmo, however tiny -- so I could choose to be an east Malmo separato-racist on an EGI basis. Genetic distance is a continuous variable, ergo there are concentric circles of fellow-feeling, as hbdchick would say. Or rather, genetic distance may be one reason for the concentric circles, which in any case do generally seem to exist. To be extremely precise it could be more a gradient than a set of discrete circles, whatever.

Why Europe then, instead of Germany, Saxony, Eurasi-africa, man at large? Or why Europe primarily, since personally I do care somewhat about man at large? (As for the USA, or even the community of US Whites, I can't say I'm specifically attached to it in any degree.) Well, there's an infinity of contingent and highly complex reasons, and it's very subjective. Hence the very, very bitter fight of someone like Nietzsche against German nationalists in his time -- 'parochialists' -- whereas he doesn't really appear to have disagreed with them in general, except that he wanted things to be on a pan-European level.

Slavs are clearly a little clumsier in science, equal in art, higher in love of adventure and energy -- all Europe is united by world-beating art and femmes, there you have it. The men aren't so shabby either, they did make most of the art. What else in the world could you possibly be so concerned about? A jug of wine, a (very) early Kandinsky, and Thee. Plus adventure, so you can get killed eventually and your girl can cry on your cold pecs. I consider Atlantid babes to be more ethereal, but all in all I greatly prefer the conversation Slavs -- since they aren't all stooped ovine fags like Atlantids, who do as they're told, but a swarm of primitive and unhinged intransigents, frightening prometheans. Even the women. For the post-ancient period, I do prefer the northern art, primarily (ie well north of Rome, from England to Vladivo), but not entirely. I'm not necessarily in favor of panmixis within Europa, but it wouldn't break my heart. Of course, I am somewhat mixed myself.

I've got no particular feelings about EGI partisans beyond mild amusement (and I've defended inter-racial mixing here in the past), but I'll make an argument for them because I don't like you.

Everything you're saying boils down to concern trolling. Presumably you are not a co-ethnic of the prominent proponents of EGI (though your undisclosed co-ethnics seem to be quite supportive of the concept in practice). If it's so anti-Darwinian, that's good for you, right? Darwin is your God, so they will be judged and found wanting. Maybe you're an altruist, I don't know. But then we see this little outburst of autistic econo-speak:

"It's everyone for themselves during an extinction event due to resource scarcity and high death tolls. Extending crucial resources to a sub-species during an extinction threat could lead to that sub-species survival to the detriment of your own sub-species."

That's the one that made me shake my head. It seems there's a point where you and the EGI crowd completely reverse positions. Before that point, you're all universal brotherhood, lets shake things up and let Darwin sort it all out, survival of the fittest style, and your adversaries, bless 'em, they have a sentimental attachment to children that look like them and no amount of argument or math will talk them out of it, their appeals to science notwithstanding. But when the asteroid hits, you're all gotta get mine, zero sum game, and your adversaries say well, I like people better than insects so you can have some of my fruit, maybe we'll get it on later even though our kids won't look exactly like me.

So what changes? Thinking in Darwinian reductionist terms, EGI proponents believe that civilized society can hinder people's ability to accurately assess fitness. As a Jewish Darwinian reductionist, you'll probably say that it just changes what traits enhance fitness the most, and I suppose you're not wrong, assuming Darwin actually is God, and we are at the end of history.

Another weird thing is the way the survival of your specific genes overrides the importance of the survival of the species when the asteroid hits. It shows that you accept the principle of preferring your own genes for non-Darwinian reasons (or do you think anything besides a no-holds-barred Hobbesian struggle will allow the weak to infect the severely depleted gene pool, and ultimately decrease the odds of the species surviving?), while illustrating your lack of perspective. It also makes pretty clear why you have such a hard time grasping why, in your example, it's not crazy (in Darwinian terms) for the rich Englishman to support co-ethnics beyond his immediate family.

"Basically, if we consider things only through the lens of genetic similarity, if your family is more related to you than non-family members of your own ethnic group, then why shouldn't one's family level genetic interests and obligations trump your ethnic level genetic interests and obligations and lead one to not give any resources at all to anyone outside your immediate family?"

Think of it as insurance. Maybe he is a superman, but that's no guarantee that his kids will be. It gets a little more questionable when times get tough, but your guy's loaded. His kids aren't hungry. And being wealthy without earning it would probably make them useless (especially if they're Darwinian reductionists who are also market fundamentalists and therefore believe their wealth indicates superior fitness).

So while I find the EGI crowd unappealing, I find your (stereotype reinforcing) position even more so. In fact, it's bizarrely reminiscent of leap-frogging loyalties, but with a scientific rationalization.

paywall... at this joint you get the whole(?) Criterion Collection (largely degenerate shit but it's a large repository of art films), plus some other shit for I don't know, X a month. Otherwise I assume you could net this bitch on netflixxx.http://www.hulu.com/watch/225637

That's the one that made me shake my head. It seems there's a point where you and the EGI crowd completely reverse positions. Before that point, you're all universal brotherhood, lets shake things up and let Darwin sort it all out, survival of the fittest style, and your adversaries, bless 'em, they have a sentimental attachment to children that look like them and no amount of argument or math will talk them out of it, their appeals to science notwithstanding. But when the asteroid hits, you're all gotta get mine, zero sum game, and your adversaries say well, I like people better than insects so you can have some of my fruit, maybe we'll get it on later even though our kids won't look exactly like me.

So what changes? Thinking in Darwinian reductionist terms, EGI proponents believe that civilized society can hinder people's ability to accurately assess fitness. As a Jewish Darwinian reductionist, you'll probably say that it just changes what traits enhance fitness the most, and I suppose you're not wrong, assuming Darwin actually is God, and we are at the end of history.

Another weird thing is the way the survival of your specific genes overrides the importance of the survival of the species when the asteroid hits. It shows that you accept the principle of preferring your own genes for non-Darwinian reasons (or do you think anything besides a no-holds-barred Hobbesian struggle will allow the weak to infect the severely depleted gene pool, and ultimately decrease the odds of the species surviving?), while illustrating your lack of perspective. It also makes pretty clear why you have such a hard time grasping why, in your example, it's not crazy (in Darwinian terms) for the rich Englishman to support co-ethnics beyond his immediate family.

That was supposed to be a defense of EGI???

Not quite sure what point you were trying to make with that rant, but everything I wrote against EGI is consistent with mainstream arguments against group selection (it's more optimal to support your kin than your "group", etc).

Certainly true, but you have few offspring and millions of coethnics. That has to be a major consideration.

But the importance of race can't be explained without refering to the evolved cognitive abilities that a race has developed and why certain cognitive profiles are better suited to maintain certain cultures than others.

For instance, Congolese immigrants won't assimilate into Swedish culture as well as Latvian immigrants because the cognitive profile of Congolese is not (too a very large, but probably not complete extent) compatible with a high trust Western nation like Sweden because of the African's low intelligence, high criminality, poor future time orientation, etc.

Latvians would assimilate, despite being somewhat different from Swedes, because their cognitive profile is a very solid fit for Swedish culture.

Cognitive ability is really the issue race realists have wanted to get at, not genetic distance, per se, because race realists don't oppose genetically different white immigrant groups immigrating to white countries. When Amren posts an article about black crime rates or Hispanic dropout rates they do so to highlight differences in racial mental ability not genetic distance.